Even if we suspend sanity for a moment and agree with everything you said, two points still dont make a pattern, they make a line, which means absolutely nothing. Again, that is the very best light I can put it in, even if I try not to think about the absurdity of every single premis that leads up to that conclusion.
nuclear strike against Iran?
- Thread starter defender48
- Start date
- Status
Even if we suspend sanity for a moment and agree with everything you said, two points still dont make a pattern, they make a line, which means absolutely nothing. Again, that is the very best light I can put it in, even if I try not to think about the absurdity of every single premis that leads up to that conclusion.
gc70
Member
Nukes are not good tactical weapons, hence the advocacy for a strategic solution to Iran - flat and shiny.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
See Cosmoline's point.
The only justification for a total nuclear attack, at this stage, has to be retaliation for a nuclear first strike. Otherwise, there's no "MAD"...just "assured destruction if we don't like you."
Think about the incentive structure when the US is willing to nuke any nation that opposes its policies: A=you oppose the US but don't have nukes. B=You oppose the US but do have nukes
If A, then the logical thing to do is to get nukes.
If B, then the logical thing to do is to nuke the US first, and hope you exterminate its capabilities with a tricky first strike.
There are more than a few countries in Category "B" who will hear the message loud and clear if we start nuking nations like Iran....nuke the US first, before you become a problem for it (ie, China).
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Come now, Mr. Yeager, surely I've not backed you into such a corner that you need to resort to ad hominum attacks regarding my sanity, because other than such insults, your post only contains one point that is easily answered.
I'll answer it with a question: how many points do you need to see before you see a pattern emerge? True you will only find one or two or three in any given situation, but study the Bush administration across a number of situations over time and a definite pattern emerges. Of course you have to be willing to see the pattern before it starts to make sense. If you look at it while wearing dogmatic blinders, you will of course remain blind.
I'll answer it with a question: how many points do you need to see before you see a pattern emerge? True you will only find one or two or three in any given situation, but study the Bush administration across a number of situations over time and a definite pattern emerges. Of course you have to be willing to see the pattern before it starts to make sense. If you look at it while wearing dogmatic blinders, you will of course remain blind.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
You can forget Israel if you wish. The problem with that is to get Israel to forget Israel. Not going to happen.
I believe Iran's president is deadly serious when he calls for the destruction of Israel. I don't think he's talking simply for the edification of the Iranian masses.
I doubt that Israel's military analysts do either. If Israel is faced with the choice of pursuing the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction with irrational jingoists and going for a first strike when no nuclear retaliation is possible-what do you think will be the choice made?
Either the Iranian leaders are covering up their peaceful intentions with genocidal threats or they are completely and earnestly serious. I believe them. I think the Israelis do also. Upon receiving reliable intelligence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program nearing completion, that leaves only one choice for Israel: remove the threat.
That doesn't necessarily mean that removing the threat will entail the use of nuclear weapons by Israel. Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear program in 1986 by conventional means. I am confident they will destroy Iran's nuclear program by conventional means if at all possible. To avoid the geopolitical consequences if for no other reason. However, if the convention effort fails, Israel will attack an Iranian nuclear weapons program with nuclear weapons if the choice is either doing that or depending upon the rationality and benevolence of the Iranian government.
You're making an unwarranted assumption here, i.e, the assumption that any nuclear attack would be tactical in nature or use 'a' nuclear bunker buster. If some nation decides to hit Iran with nuclear weapons over this issue, I doubt it will be 'limited' or 'tactical' in nature. If all possible targets are hit, the probability of not hitting the right targets decreases dramatically. Alternatively, if the workers in the nuclear program are all dead from blast and radiation then it is moot whether the facilities are intact or destroyed.
All Iran's hardening of its nuclear facilities does is to encourage any enemy that employs a nuclear preemptive strike to make it big enough to do a harder job.
I've seen no evidence of any great improvement in the capabilities of Iran's military since the war with Iraq. Unless the Iranian military has improved dramatically over the past twenty years, I doubt that Israel would go to a nuclear strike unless conventional military efforts failed.
Lobotomy Boy,
Germany getting itself into war with the three greatest polities on earth-each of which had a much greater population, more industry, more resources, and more people than Germany-is somehow equivalent to the US taking on Iran?
That's a laughable comparison. Gemans, shortly after their invasion of Russia, were facing divisions which their intelligence services had no clue existed. The Soviets could have retreated for hundreds if not thousands of miles and still possessed ports, railroads, and industrial centers sufficient to fight. Comparing Soviet Russia to Islamic Iran in military terms is laughable. Iran, faced with any formidable invasion, has none of the options the Soviets had. Some pattern.
I believe Iran's president is deadly serious when he calls for the destruction of Israel. I don't think he's talking simply for the edification of the Iranian masses.
I doubt that Israel's military analysts do either. If Israel is faced with the choice of pursuing the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction with irrational jingoists and going for a first strike when no nuclear retaliation is possible-what do you think will be the choice made?
Either the Iranian leaders are covering up their peaceful intentions with genocidal threats or they are completely and earnestly serious. I believe them. I think the Israelis do also. Upon receiving reliable intelligence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program nearing completion, that leaves only one choice for Israel: remove the threat.
That doesn't necessarily mean that removing the threat will entail the use of nuclear weapons by Israel. Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear program in 1986 by conventional means. I am confident they will destroy Iran's nuclear program by conventional means if at all possible. To avoid the geopolitical consequences if for no other reason. However, if the convention effort fails, Israel will attack an Iranian nuclear weapons program with nuclear weapons if the choice is either doing that or depending upon the rationality and benevolence of the Iranian government.
.
You're making an unwarranted assumption here, i.e, the assumption that any nuclear attack would be tactical in nature or use 'a' nuclear bunker buster. If some nation decides to hit Iran with nuclear weapons over this issue, I doubt it will be 'limited' or 'tactical' in nature. If all possible targets are hit, the probability of not hitting the right targets decreases dramatically. Alternatively, if the workers in the nuclear program are all dead from blast and radiation then it is moot whether the facilities are intact or destroyed.
All Iran's hardening of its nuclear facilities does is to encourage any enemy that employs a nuclear preemptive strike to make it big enough to do a harder job.
I've seen no evidence of any great improvement in the capabilities of Iran's military since the war with Iraq. Unless the Iranian military has improved dramatically over the past twenty years, I doubt that Israel would go to a nuclear strike unless conventional military efforts failed.
Lobotomy Boy,
Germany getting itself into war with the three greatest polities on earth-each of which had a much greater population, more industry, more resources, and more people than Germany-is somehow equivalent to the US taking on Iran?
That's a laughable comparison. Gemans, shortly after their invasion of Russia, were facing divisions which their intelligence services had no clue existed. The Soviets could have retreated for hundreds if not thousands of miles and still possessed ports, railroads, and industrial centers sufficient to fight. Comparing Soviet Russia to Islamic Iran in military terms is laughable. Iran, faced with any formidable invasion, has none of the options the Soviets had. Some pattern.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
I am one hundred percent confident that the Israelis will choose the MAD with the Iranians. Not only do they have a much better understanding of the region and the culture, they are by and large extremely shrewd and self-interested in terms of foreign relations.
Why does this mean they would never, ever be the first to use a nuke (even if they want people to believe they might)?
Because they realize that nuking Iran today means a one hundred percent certainty that tel aviv will be hit tomorrow. Israel using nukes would radicalize and galvanize a number of nuclear capable muslim entities, the first on the list being pakistan. If Israel is the aggressor in any nuclear conflict, it will only be a matter of time before the newly strengthened Islamist movement gets a nuke, and they WILL use it. (It's entirely believable, for example, that they'd be able to steal one from Pakistan and find a delivery system via Syria or Jordan).
I'm noticing a distinct disconnect in people's thinking here: On the one hand, the "radical jihadist enterprise" is so insane that it would use a nuke, even if it were assured destruction....but on the other hand, nuking one country is supposed to send a message that will make them stop trying to acquire nukes?
If they're willing to die now, they'll be twice as willing after the Israelis or the US justify all their insane dreams about the Great Satan by using a nuke. And they will find sympathetic, nuclear capable partners in that scenario...since nuking the whole world, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India isn't an option, this is a terrifying road to go down.
Kaylee
Member
The whole problem with the "we can't do X, then they'll nuke us" approach (for us or for Israel) is that it assumes they won't nuke us at the first opportunity anyway.
Personally, I don't believe that for a second. (Neither for that matter do I really think nuking them would be a deterrent.. especially given how easily it could make any shred of support for the west among the youth of Iran just evaporate)
That said.. destroying their nuclear facilities by any means necessary, including nuclear, I think is.. well, I was going to say good idea, but not really. More "least bad of a bunch of terrible choices"
Personally, I don't believe that for a second. (Neither for that matter do I really think nuking them would be a deterrent.. especially given how easily it could make any shred of support for the west among the youth of Iran just evaporate)
That said.. destroying their nuclear facilities by any means necessary, including nuclear, I think is.. well, I was going to say good idea, but not really. More "least bad of a bunch of terrible choices"
CAnnoneer
Member
Yes, let's dig a big hole in the ground, stick our heads in, and try to rationalize the thought process of nutcases with nukes, so that perhaps we can predict which side of the divan they are going to get up the morning they acquire nuclear weapons. Will they choose MAD, will they choose MacD, or will they just glass us and happily hurry to their 72 virgins?
Meanwhile, they are building the nukes...
Meanwhile, they are building the nukes...
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
When your ideas of other people are just like cartoon characters, it's because your understanding of the situation is as flat and one dimensional as the newspapers that cartoons get printed on.
They are people with motives just like us. They aren't the same, but they aren't insane either. The image of the crazed jihadist with no brain function whatosever is a myth, pure and simple.
The fact that you didn't bother to learn about what they're thinking and why, doesn't mean that there are in fact no thoughts to be found. People who reduce the Iran/Iraq/Israeli-Palestine conflicts to this level are uniformly those with the least possible experience of the culture and history.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
As I stated earlier in this thread, I think Israel will try conventional military destruction of Iran's nuclear program first.
Perhaps you need to peruse some of the studies done on the MAD doctrine. One of the basic tenets is that each side must make rational choices for the strategy to work as envisaged. If one side does not make rational choices then you, indeed, have mutual assured destruction instead of deterrence.
Tell me this...in your opinion, the president of Iran is rational in his calls for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. He's not alone in his views among his colleagues in the Iranian government. In fact, that faction is running the place.
So, you believe the president of Iran-and others of his faction- are lying when they spout irrational verbiage and threats of genocide. Could you please list some reasons for this view?
Personally, I'd rather pet a rattlesnake than depend on this person to deterred by MAD.
You have implied a deeper understanding of the cultures, goals, and dynamics of the region. Display these attainments.
Tell us why Israel would trust its survival to this man and others of his ilk.
gc70
Member
Okay, shootinstudent, help the ignorant masses understand the Iranians.
What is the President of Iran really thinking when he publicly pronouces that Israel should be wiped off the map?
Or maybe explain what the Iranians are thinking when they say that they only want nuclear capability to generate power but are also buying long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
Yes. They are politicians. We already know they're likely lying about their military capability...unless you believe they can actually "destroy the great satan" with Iran's military might. The Iranian regime is surrounded by Western Forces and Western Allies...they also know that we have not forgotten about the 444 days of hostage taking.
At the same time, they have expansionist ambitions in Iraq and Syria. The major players in the UIA are Iranian puppets (this is why there was such an argument over who the next PM of Iraq would be).
So at root, they're acting on some pretty basic motives: national defense, and national expansion. All of their rhetoric is perfectly consistent with those goals. You scare off enemies, rush to produce what defense capability you can, and always promise the most grave responses should you be attacked. It's not that different from the Israelis threatening to strike their neighbors over any attacks at all. It's a way of preventing war while carrying out your objectives.
Edited to add: As for "genocide" against Jews, this is flat out wrong. There are thousands of Jews living Iran today, and they get a guaranteed seat in the Iranian parliament. Iran is an anti-Israeli state, with no interest in killing all Jews and a demonstrable track record of respecting Jews in Iran (as much as the Iranian government respects any individuals, anyway.)
On point 1: I've lived and studied with Turks, Palestinians, Pakistanis, and western residents of the middle east for all of my post-high school education, and spent plenty of time studying precisely this part of the world. Having the insights of people who grew up there and who know the language is an invaluable way to learn...they certainly can recognize the problems as human and political and quite sane, even if the solutions mystify all parties involved.
Point 2: Israel shouldn't trust its survival to this man and others of his ilk, for good reason. Their objectives are diametrically opposed. That has nothing to do with nuclear responses, though...because acting first with nukes guarantees that the radical anti-Israel parties (currently not ruling Jordan, Egypt, Syria, or Lebanon) will come to power, and will do everything they can to wipe Israel off the map. (See nukes stolen from other places scenario above...). This is a case where Israel will have to rely on its defenses and diplomatic savvy, and I'm confident that it will because so far, they've been very smart strategic thinkers.
Sam
Member
shootinstudent,
No conflict between arabs and jews prior to 1940.
Who were the first bunch in Medina that Muhammad took on?
Who was doing all the shooting in "Palestine" between 1919 and 1940, and there was considerable?
Query in regards to your point #1:
How much time have you actually spent there on the ground as opposed to
Sam
No conflict between arabs and jews prior to 1940.
Who were the first bunch in Medina that Muhammad took on?
Who was doing all the shooting in "Palestine" between 1919 and 1940, and there was considerable?
Query in regards to your point #1:
How much time have you actually spent there on the ground as opposed to
?
Sam
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
The first bunch were the Pagans of Medina. There was a Jewish tribe who happened to be allied with them, but that was by no means a "let's kill all the Jews" war. It had nothing to do with them being Jewish.
In Palestine between 1919 and 1940, most of the fighting was rioting of various sorts. After that, the most serious fighting was between Jewish nationalist groups and the British military. That's when the hatred that's there today sprang up, for sure.
And then there's that whole period between the mid7th century and the 20th century of Jews faring better in the muslim territories than anywhere else in the world. That's a pretty well verified historical fact...there were no patterns of singling out Jews for genocide under muslim rule, while the same thing occurred over and over again in Europe.
None. The only Muslim countries I've spent significant amounts of time in are in Southeast Asia.
Thin Black Line
Member
Really? I'd like to see the French pony up with some of that globocop
duty besides taking on a couple hundred insurgents in this or that
African country.
Hopefully, the French aren't skimming 10% off Iranian oil sales like
they were with the Saddam so they can send a dozen soldiers along
on the next Middle East escapade
Take this a step further and think from a globalist perspective.
And? What's next? The US takes on Brazil because handguns made by
one of their gun companies ended up with MS-13 gang members in
El Salvador?
Please explain to me why it's America's job to police the world.
LOL, let the French do it since they have a law mandating
full-employment....
And no experience with boots on the ground
CAnnoneer
Member
The world is very complex and full of nuances and caveats. However, everyone who gets entangled in the excessive detail is also generally the one that gets completely paralyzed in trying to reach a workable course of action.
This is the third time I am asking the bleeding hearts to offer one, just one, practical workable real-world solution to WMD proliferation, especially in the case of militant hostile cultures. If you cannot provide that, all your philosophizing is worthless (see my sig), nay, outright suicidal.
Please explain how they are not insane. They make ridiculous statements, refuse to negotiate, and obstinately move along an escalation course towards a horrible confrontation that will certainly wipe them out of the face of the earth. Please explain the sanity of such a position. The equivalent of this is Khruschev refusing to turn the ships around.
Empathize with them as much as you want. Just don't sympathize with them. (ref. Fog of War) Your friends are not the same as the nutcases in Iran, even if they share language and ethnicity. Different resonances can be excited in the same oscillator system.
Again, since you claim such first-hand knowledge with these cultures, please enlighten us on just one practicable course of action in WMD proliferation prevention.
CAnnoneer
Member
I agree that it is not our job to police the world. See my previous posts in the same thread. People out there can "negotiate vigorously" as much as they want. War is part of human existence, always has been, always will be; pacifists need to grow up and face that music.
We should sell them conventional weapons and watch the fireworks. We have no responsibility to keep them from killing one another. That's why the UN is such a stupid idea, especially when it tries to use us as their Globocop.
However, non-involvement is not equivalent to neglecting our national security. When nutcases that hate us and our way of life try to get nukes, and when they seems okay with the idea of dying to kill us, it becomes a matter of self-defense and then we should pre-emptively strike before they strike us, especially since they are bent on getting them and no negotiation seems to work. That is not Globocop, that is self-defense.
seeker_two
Member
It all boils down to this...
...it is exceedingly difficult to develop and maintain a nuclear program if you're dead...
...now, we need to decide who sends the message to whom...
:banghead:
...it is exceedingly difficult to develop and maintain a nuclear program if you're dead...
...now, we need to decide who sends the message to whom...
:banghead:
I have skipped over the 10000 posts but anyhow:
It is not that our Iran friends do not deserve a good nuking. I just don't know if nukes will do the trick.
It would seem to me that the way to destroy the deep nuke bunkers in Iran would be by taking and holding the ground above the bunkers with troops (Airborne?). Then going to work on the bunkers while the troops hold possession of the area.
Taking out the bunkers would need some less than nice methods and would be a bit messy. You could burn them, flood them, gas them, smother them, or a little of each. You might even fly in some well drilling equipment and drill into these underground targets. Thus exposing the targets to burning, flooding, etc. The main things being that you do indeed find all of these targets and destroy them.
It is not that our Iran friends do not deserve a good nuking. I just don't know if nukes will do the trick.
It would seem to me that the way to destroy the deep nuke bunkers in Iran would be by taking and holding the ground above the bunkers with troops (Airborne?). Then going to work on the bunkers while the troops hold possession of the area.
Taking out the bunkers would need some less than nice methods and would be a bit messy. You could burn them, flood them, gas them, smother them, or a little of each. You might even fly in some well drilling equipment and drill into these underground targets. Thus exposing the targets to burning, flooding, etc. The main things being that you do indeed find all of these targets and destroy them.
Frohickey
Member
I think a recession or depression in the Iranian economy would prolly be better at stopping their nuclear ambitions.
Unfortunately, they have too much oil, and the Chinese are oil-hungry as well.
Unfortunately, they have too much oil, and the Chinese are oil-hungry as well.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
I think we should take Ronald Reagan's approach: deal with them. I think it's funny that there's carter bashing on this thread (though he deserves it), when his plan was a failed attempt at Jack-Bauer style snatching...and Reagan's plan was to sell them arms.
Incentives: we can offer them something in Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan...those are all ways for oil to flow from Iran or for oil to through Iran on its way to somewhere else.
Reagan proved the Iranians can be negotiated with. Let's take his approach.
CAnnoneer
Member
Sounds like feeding Hitler some portions of Europe to keep him quiet. We know how that worked out.
Besides, we giving away portions of other countries to placate a terrorist government?! Surreal.
I very much doubt Reagan would have allowed Iran any WMDs. Selling conventional weapons to Iran to keep Saddam and the Soviets in check is one thing, allowing Iran WMD is a whole new ballgame.
Monkeyleg
Member.
shootinstudent: what if they don't care about their flow of oil, or the money, or arms, or anything else?
What if they are what their public pronouncements say they are?
Last time I checked, Iran had not lost its equivalent of the Sudetentland. The country's economy is nowhere near the state of collapse that Germany's was in the early 1930's.
Comparing 1930's Germany with 2006 Iran is apples and oranges.
What if they are what their public pronouncements say they are?
Last time I checked, Iran had not lost its equivalent of the Sudetentland. The country's economy is nowhere near the state of collapse that Germany's was in the early 1930's.
Comparing 1930's Germany with 2006 Iran is apples and oranges.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
That is besides the point. The point is, Reagan was able to negotiate quite rationally with the Iranians in a way that led to them getting enough to play ball with us. They are clearly rational actors...they just don't have the same goals we do. "Placating" worked well for Reagan...there's no reason why it can't work for us, especially when you consider that apart from oil, Iran represents zero threat to US interests at this point. Iran is the problem of Iraqi sunnis, Syrian sunnis, Lebanese Sunnis, and Israel, first and foremost.
I find it odd that you think it's "surreal" to placate terrorists, but at the same time think it's perfectly legitimate to nuke millions of people over a questionable threat to US interests. Why the moral outrage over funding terrorists, but the complete neutrality on killing millions of people?
Monkeyleg
Member.
"I find it odd that you think it's "surreal" to placate terrorists, but at the same time think it's perfectly legitimate to nuke millions of people over a questionable threat to US interests. Why the moral outrage over funding terrorists, but the complete neutrality on killing millions of people?"
If the Iranians do what their leaders say they want to do, I suspect that you'll not consider their threat "questionable."
I'm not at all in favor of engaging Iran militarily right now. We have troops all over the region, and we're trying to establish a government in Iraq.
Taking on Iran anytime in the near future would set us back decades, and only invite more attacks from other countries in the region.
But if an attack on our interests--particularly a serious attack--goes with little or no response, we're roadkill.
"They are clearly rational actors...they just don't have the same goals we do."
They were somewhat rational actors thirty years ago. I'm not so certain that the leadership now is rational.
As for their goals?
They may just be jockeying for the new leadership role in the Arab League. But I certainly don't discount their threats.
If the Iranians do what their leaders say they want to do, I suspect that you'll not consider their threat "questionable."
I'm not at all in favor of engaging Iran militarily right now. We have troops all over the region, and we're trying to establish a government in Iraq.
Taking on Iran anytime in the near future would set us back decades, and only invite more attacks from other countries in the region.
But if an attack on our interests--particularly a serious attack--goes with little or no response, we're roadkill.
"They are clearly rational actors...they just don't have the same goals we do."
They were somewhat rational actors thirty years ago. I'm not so certain that the leadership now is rational.
As for their goals?
They may just be jockeying for the new leadership role in the Arab League. But I certainly don't discount their threats.
- Status
